The film's subject feels a bit more art house so I am not entirely surprised. However, the real question is "How does it do internationally?" and "How does it do on streaming services?" The American market is no longer the dominating market for film like in the old days. That is why a lot of films are setup to be more attractive to the film audience in Asia, specifically China.

I have not seen the movie.
This looks like it might have done better straight to streaming.

Flopping means we'll be able to stream it sooner. Good news, because I want to watch it and rarely do theaters.

If it was up to me, everything would go straight to streaming and/or Blu.

Shdar

I'm sorry, but this is really a terrible thing to say. I enjoy stuff on the small screen as much as the next guy, but I think that going to the movie (or to a play) is a completely different kind of experience and I usually watch movies on the big screen with a completely different approach and mindset. Movie night was a big deal for me as a kid and it still is, not because of the movie but because of everything else that comes with: friends, food and whatnot.
Can I get the same things watching a movie at home?
Sure, but there's a different feeling and quality to it that I really don't get. Plus it's often much harder to convince my friends to come over at my place to watch something on TV than asking them to go to see a movie at the theater.

willow wrote: The film's subject feels a bit more art house so I am not entirely surprised. However, the real question is "How does it do internationally?" and "How does it do on streaming services?" The American market is no longer the dominating market for film like in the old days. That is why a lot of films are setup to be more attractive to the film audience in Asia, specifically China.

I think that's both true and false. Foreign markets are kind of problematic for many companies because their revenue is often limited. I'm not sure how it works today, but a few years ago I listened to a radio show were a guy explained licenses for TV shows: usually the original studios usually get a fixed sum based on the predicted success of the movie on that foreign market and nothing more, so if the show tanks the studios got lucky, if it's a smashing hit then it sucks for them.
Of course, these aren't universal rules, but they have been the guideline for a long time.

(formerly Anon, still Librarian)

"What is the point of having free will if one cannot occasionally spit in the eye of destiny?" ("Gentleman" John Marcone)

I haven't seen the film yet, but tbh, I'm not totally surprised by it not being a runaway success. If the assumption was that people who liked WW would flock to see this, then I don't know what to say.
The story of her creator and creation is WILDLY different to the WW we have today.

With regards to going to the movies, I only go if the film is worthy of a cinematic experience. Not EVERY movie needs to be seen in the cinema, though some can ONLY be truly enjoyed in the cinema.

I agree Woodclaw, there is a certain feeling and experience going to watch something in the cinema, but that, to me, only applies to certain films. Films that I see, look forward to seeing, and/or have seen in the cinema that benefit from going, to me include:

Any Star Wars film
Any Marvel film
Lord of the Rings Trilogy
The Hobbit Trilogy
Valerian
Blade Runner 2049

Going further back in time (no pun intended)

Back to the Future
The Goonies
and many, many more

There is a certain magic to the cinema experience, but imo a LOT of films can be seen today streaming and/or on bluray/dvd and they don't lose anything from doing so. I'm not one of those that mindlessly flocks to the cinema for every movie released.

Ofc, how one watches and enjoys a movie is subjective, but I would still argue that there is a case for movies that benefit from the "cinematic experience" and those that don't.

I would say Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman definitely benefited from the big screen cinematic experience. It gave it that 'punch'. Don't think watching the dvd at home will be the same, although I'll buy it anyway!

I'm not surprised. About a year ago I stumbled upon a site that make a minute-by-minute reality check on biopics and it turned out that the most accurate of them usually get a 35% real, 35% plausible, 30% hogwash.

(formerly Anon, still Librarian)

"What is the point of having free will if one cannot occasionally spit in the eye of destiny?" ("Gentleman" John Marcone)

kikass2014 wrote: I haven't seen the film yet, but tbh, I'm not totally surprised by it not being a runaway success. If the assumption was that people who liked WW would flock to see this, then I don't know what to say.
The story of her creator and creation is WILDLY different to the WW we have today.

With regards to going to the movies, I only go if the film is worthy of a cinematic experience. Not EVERY movie needs to be seen in the cinema, though some can ONLY be truly enjoyed in the cinema.

I agree Woodclaw, there is a certain feeling and experience going to watch something in the cinema, but that, to me, only applies to certain films. Films that I see, look forward to seeing, and/or have seen in the cinema that benefit from going, to me include:

Any Star Wars film
Any Marvel film
Lord of the Rings Trilogy
The Hobbit Trilogy
Valerian
Blade Runner 2049

Going further back in time (no pun intended)

Back to the Future
The Goonies
and many, many more

There is a certain magic to the cinema experience, but imo a LOT of films can be seen today streaming and/or on bluray/dvd and they don't lose anything from doing so. I'm not one of those that mindlessly flocks to the cinema for every movie released.

Ofc, how one watches and enjoys a movie is subjective, but I would still argue that there is a case for movies that benefit from the "cinematic experience" and those that don't.

Interesting discussion to have

Peace.

/K

I think it depends on how your home theater is set up. Mine is a dedicated room that was designed for the purpose, with a functionally larger screen than anything short of an IMAX (screen size versus distance) and has better sound than any theater. The best digital theaters are running 4K now (same as my home theater) with most still on 2K.

DVD's can't do justice to that, nor can the normal Bluray, but the new Ultra HD Bluray (4K) disks are outstanding, albeit still limited in titles. Plus, 8K is on the horizon. Streaming is now becoming common at 4K.

Oh, and my popcorn machine was salvaged from an old movie theater.

I don't care if I ever go into a movie theater again, although plays are great fun and those obviously have to staged in theaters.

The trend is toward earlier releases of movies for home viewing, and I don't doubt that someone will eventually get that down to nearly zero delay. I know some companies are trying to sell that model to the studios. I'd happily pay $USD50 or even a bit more for a single viewing at home of a movie that's released the same time as the theater. For me, the closest halfway decent theater (2K) is more than an hour's drive (each way) from my house, and the closest top-notch (4K) theater is 2 1/2 hours each way from my house (have to go into Seattle).

My bigger problem is internet speeds given I live outside of a town area and have to rely on a custom microwave radio link.. At 10Mbs download speeds, it takes a while to grab a 4K movie. But downloading during the day to watch at night works well. But I'm going to need to update the radios to routinely handle streaming of 4K or 8K content. My neighbor thankfully owns the company that provides the internet service for this area, and he's a tech nut who already has 100Mbs at his house. I've told him I'd be happy with half that. Maybe next year he says. I'll probably wait until 2019 to invest in 8K gear anyway.

So yeah, I'm a retired electrical engineer who likes tinkering with his gadgets. The amazing part is that my five dogs have adjusted to the room-shaking audio and they just snuggle up. Until they see a dog or wolf on the screen. My three Labs act as if the animal is in the room and rush the screen. That rules out some movies without putting the dogs outside. (They really come for the popcorn anyway.) The two little dogs don't seem to care what's on the screen.

shadar wrote: I think it depends on how your home theater is set up. Mine is a dedicated room that was designed for the purpose, with a functionally larger screen than anything short of an IMAX (screen size versus distance) and has better sound than any theater. The best digital theaters are running 4K now (same as my home theater) with most still on 2K.

DVD's can't do justice to that, nor can the normal Bluray, but the new Ultra HD Bluray (4K) disks are outstanding, albeit still limited in titles. Plus, 8K is on the horizon. Streaming is now becoming common at 4K.

Oh, and my popcorn machine was salvaged from an old movie theater.

I don't care if I ever go into a movie theater again, although plays are great fun and those obviously have to staged in theaters.

The trend is toward earlier releases of movies for home viewing, and I don't doubt that someone will eventually get that down to nearly zero delay. I know some companies are trying to sell that model to the studios. I'd happily pay $USD50 or even a bit more for a single viewing at home of a movie that's released the same time as the theater. For me, the closest halfway decent theater (2K) is more than an hour's drive (each way) from my house, and the closest top-notch (4K) theater is 2 1/2 hours each way from my house (have to go into Seattle).

My bigger problem is internet speeds given I live outside of a town area and have to rely on a custom microwave radio link.. At 10Mbs download speeds, it takes a while to grab a 4K movie. But downloading during the day to watch at night works well. But I'm going to need to update the radios to routinely handle streaming of 4K or 8K content. My neighbor thankfully owns the company that provides the internet service for this area, and he's a tech nut who already has 100Mbs at his house. I've told him I'd be happy with half that. Maybe next year he says. I'll probably wait until 2019 to invest in 8K gear anyway.

So yeah, I'm a retired electrical engineer who likes tinkering with his gadgets. The amazing part is that my five dogs have adjusted to the room-shaking audio and they just snuggle up. Until they see a dog or wolf on the screen. My three Labs act as if the animal is in the room and rush the screen. That rules out some movies without putting the dogs outside. (They really come for the popcorn anyway.) The two little dogs don't seem to care what's on the screen.

Shadar

Okay, I can see that with that kind of equipment you're pretty much covered for the visual and sound part, but for me that's only half the experience. Plus not everybody can afford or install that kind of hardware.

(formerly Anon, still Librarian)

"What is the point of having free will if one cannot occasionally spit in the eye of destiny?" ("Gentleman" John Marcone)

Being a film buff myself, while I can't say my setup is as good as yours, its fairly decent

My point, like Woodclaw states, was that the "cinema experience" is more then just sound and vision. Its that communal feeling (especially with high fan films like Star Wars, MCU and in the past LOTR). There is a special aura being in the presence of others like yourself, talking, speculating, with total strangers for one night. Of sharing the emotional roller coaster of a good movie with others, cheering and applauding at the start and the end.

As I said, you don't get that with every film, in fact I would say very few fall into my definition of a cinema experience. But when they do, I personally look forward to it

Being a film buff myself, while I can't say my setup is as good as yours, its fairly decent

My point, like Woodclaw states, was that the "cinema experience" is more then just sound and vision. Its that communal feeling (especially with high fan films like Star Wars, MCU and in the past LOTR). There is a special aura being in the presence of others like yourself, talking, speculating, with total strangers for one night. Of sharing the emotional roller coaster of a good movie with others, cheering and applauding at the start and the end.

As I said, you don't get that with every film, in fact I would say very few fall into my definition of a cinema experience. But when they do, I personally look forward to it

Peace.

/K

If I lived anywhere near a technically good theater, I might enjoy the social experience. But that's one of the things I've given up to live well away from concentrations of people.

Just a matter of priorities. I like living where no lights are visible at night and the air is pure and clean with no industry upstream of me for 5000 miles. I live in the extreme northwest corner of the US where the closest upstream factory or population center is in Japan. Fortunately, there's this big pond named the Pacific Ocean in between.

I was forced to live in or near big cities during my working life, so my idea of retirement was to do the opposite of everything I'd done since I started working for a living. That meant going away from cities as far as I could and still have reliable power and at least a half decent Internet, and near a shoreline that almost always has on-shore breezes. I like ocean air and a cool, wet climate.

Some places in western Wales, Ireland or Scotland would also have qualified on that side of the little pond. I've been to western Ireland in the winter and it felt much like home. Lived in the Azores for a while in the early 70's, and that weather was nice too. Then I spent time in Greenland. NOT nice weather.

On the matter of the film itself, until today I honestly thought that it was a niche documentary that I'd just happened to have heard of because of my interest in the topic. Just now seeing that it was a scripted biopic intended as a major release. And if the marketing failed to make ME aware of that fact, with my already built-in interest in the topic, I can't imagine how poorly the average moviegoer would have responded. Well, actually I don't have to imagine, the box office speaks for itself. 14th-worst opening in history for a movie released on more than a thousand screens.

when its a movie about the creation of Wonder Woman its pretty fun. Oliver Platt, one of those always reliable fun actors is playing William Gaines the guy who published wonder woman for the first time-and he does a good job as a guy who looks at Marston, a waspy college professor who wants to make a comic about a wonder woman. at a time when pretty much it was shit work-with a good mixture of huh, and is there something with this guy- when its about that and the kind of logic of it...its not a bad movie.

one the rest of the movie which is a bisexual love s&M love triangle-not so great.. Luke Evans as the lead continues to be one of those actors when he appears in movies you kind of wonder if hes here. Rebecca Hall tries to have some fun as his wife, but has a script that wants to sand rough out her edges a little to easily and Bella Hathcoate is pretty in a 40s way...but well for a person who the movie suggests was the inspiration for Wonder woman doesn't make much of an impression. The movie has a kind of aura that there relationship is nothing wrong-which you know is fair. But its also not dramatically intresting for it.

some of the 40s decour is nicely done, and it looks okay. The Actual attempts to give it a plot and tie it into the coruption of innocence story aren't as bad as they could be and Connie Britton at least finds a little bit of subxtext as the movies villian...

But this isn't a great movie. Robertson is a director i do like, when she makes movies and can have fun-but its not great